University of Montana
ScholarWorks at University of Montana
Independent Living and Community Participation
Rural Institute for Inclusive Communities
4-2012
Overview of Rural America: Past, Present, and
Future
Brian Dabson
RUPRI Center for Rural Entrepreneurship, Lincoln, NE
Nancy Arnold
University of Montana - Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities
Tom Seekins Ph.D.
University of Montana Rural Institute
[email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umt.edu/
ruralinst_independent_living_community_participation
Part of the Demography, Population, and Ecology Commons
Recommended Citation
Dabson, Brian; Arnold, Nancy; Seekins, Tom Ph.D.; and Rural Institute, University of Montana, "Overview of Rural America: Past,
Present, and Future" (2012). Independent Living and Community Participation. Paper 39.
http://scholarworks.umt.edu/ruralinst_independent_living_community_participation/39
This State of the Science Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Rural Institute for Inclusive Communities at ScholarWorks at
University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Independent Living and Community Participation by an authorized administrator of
ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected].
April 2012
Overview of Rural America:
Past, Present, and Future
Brian Dabson
RUPRI Center for Rural Entrepreneurship, Lincoln, NE
Nancy Arnold & Tom Seekins
RTC:Rural, University of Montana
Rural America is a diverse and changing place. Small-town
America, the family farm, and the frontier west are images that
have long formed the foundation of the rural American dream.
Basic rural values that are ingrained in visions of open spaces,
picturesque rolling hills, rich farmlands, patchwork waves of grain,
and majestic mountains are alive and romanticized in our culture.
Yet these popular images mask the reality that rural America is an
extremely significant, diverse, and complex part of our society, with
resources, problems, and needs that are extensive and largely
misunderstood. This paper addresses several key issues and
suggests an emerging new rural paradigm to address them.
What Do We Mean by Rural
Distinguishing urban from rural has long been a central theme of
demography, whether it takes the form of a single dichotomy (i.e., a
place is either rural or urban) or is expressed as a continuum based
on population size. The usual result has been to define rural places
as residual (i.e., those places that are not urban) and a tendency
to base place-based policies on a dichotomous view of human
settlement. As Coombes and Raybould note, “[I]n an increasingly
complex pattern of settlement … no single measure can represent
all of the distinct aspects of settlement structure that will be of
interest to public policy” (Coombes & Raybould, 2001, p. 224). They
argue that there are at least three distinct dimensions to modern
settlement patterns: (1) settlement size, ranging from metropolitan
to hamlet; (2) concentration, ranging from dense to sparse; and (3)
accessibility, ranging from central to remote.
Demography and Geography
In an examination of these dimensions, Hugo, Champion and
Lattes (2003) note that many countries use population size as
their sole criterion for defining urban settlements and for creating
distinctions between settlement types. This has deep roots in
RTC:Rural
52 Corbin Hall
The University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812
Toll Free: 888.268.2743
Fax: 406.243.2349
TTY: 406.243.4200
[email protected]
rtc.ruralinstitute.umt.edu
Alternative formats available
Table 1: Population of Counties Across the Rural-Urban Continuum 2000
Code
Description
No.
Counties
2000 Population
000s
% Total
Population
Metro Counties
1
Counties in metro areas of
1 million population or more
413
149,224
53.0
2
Counties in metro areas of
250,000 to 1 million population
325
55,514
19.7
351
27,842
9.9
1,089
232,580
82.6
218
14,442
5.1
105
5,573
2.0
609
15,134
5.4
450
8,464
3.0
235
2,426
0.9
435
2,803
1.0
2,052
48,842
17.4
3,141
281,422
100.0
3
Counties in metro areas of
fewer than 250,000 population
Total Metro Counties
Nonmetro Counties
4
5
6
7
8
9
Urban population of
20,000 or more,
adjacent to a metro area
Urban population of
20,000 or more,
not adjacent to metro area
Urban population of 2,500 to 19,999,
adjacent to metro area
Urban population of
2,500 to 19,999,
not adjacent to metro area
Completely rural or
less than 2,500 urban population,
adjacent to metro area
Completely rural or
less than 2,500 urban population,
not adjacent to metro area
Total Nonmetro Counties
U.S. TOTAL
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
central places theory and is still the preferred
metric for those with an interest in large cities
and metropolitan regions. Size, it is argued,
matters in terms of competitiveness, diversity,
interaction, and innovation. The measurement
of concentration in terms of population
density is often used to measure the extent of
urbanization and has been used as a predictor
of population growth or decline (Smailes,
1996). The third dimension, access to basic
Page 2
goods and services, is used as an indicator
of quality of life1 and cost of living. Hugo et al
(2003) argue that there is no need to restrict
analysis to just these three dimensions, given
that the advent of sophisticated geographical
information systems permit the use of a much
1
For a full description based on an extensive
literature review, see Dissart, J. C., & Deller, S. C.,
2000. Quality of Life in the Planning Literature,
Journal of Planning Literature, 15, 135.
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities
Figure 1: Distribution of Population Categories, 2003. Source: USDA, Economic Research Service.
wider set of variables that better capture the
diversity and complexity of settlement, both
urban and rural.
In the United States, there have been many
attempts to create typologies that echo this
broader approach (Isserman, 2005; Cromartie,
2007). Yet public policy tends to be tied to
one of two types of measurement. The first,
used by the U.S. Census Bureau, defines
urbanized areas in terms of population (over
50,000 people) and density (1,000 persons
per square mile at the core, 500 persons per
square mile in adjoining territory) and urban
clusters with populations between 2,500 and
49,999 people. As Isserman observed, “... we
define urban very carefully and precisely and
designate as rural that which is not urban. This
separation of territory into town or country,
urban or rural, leads us to define rural simply
Page 3
as homogenous with respect to not being
urban” (Isserman, 2005, p. 465).
The second type of measurement is provided
by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). This defines metropolitan areas as
central counties with one or more urbanized
areas together with outlying counties that
are economically tied to the core counties
as measured by commuting to work flows.
The areas outside the metropolitan areas are
designated as nonmetropolitan, although there
is an additional category of micropolitan areas
that are centered on urban clusters of 10,000
or more persons. Again, as Isserman wryly
noted, “We define metropolitan very carefully
and precisely, beginning with an urban area
at the core, but then we use the word ‘rural’
indiscriminately as a widely adopted synonym
for places both urban and rural that are not
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities
Table 2: Isserman’s Rural Typology
Code Type
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Urban metro
Mixed urban
metro
Mixed urban
nonmetro
Mixed rural metro
Mixed rural
nonmetro
Rural metro
Rural nonmetro
TOTAL
Rural
% Population
No.
Population
Population
in Rural
Counties
000s
Areas
000s
% of U.S.
Rural
Population
171
125,927
2
3,001
5
147
40,931
15
6,082
10
11
175
21
36
-
467
59,133
27
15,975
27
555
27,292
47
12,701
22
304
1,486
6,589
21,375
78
75
5,133
16,134
9
27
3,141
281,422
59,062
100
Source: Isserman (2005).
within metropolitan areas. In short, rural is
used in two different overlapping and often
contradictory ways, usually defined by what it
is not: not urban, not metropolitan” (Isserman,
2005, p. 465).
The USDA Economic Research Service
has developed a classification scheme that
distinguishes metropolitan (metro) counties
by the population size of their metro area, and
non metropolitan (nonmetro) counties by their
degree of urbanization and adjacency to a
metro area or areas.
The scheme then subdivides these metro
and nonmetro categories into three metro
and six nonmetro groupings, resulting in a
nine-part county classification known as the
Rural-Urban Continuum. This provides a
more fine-grained picture of rural and urban
characteristics.
Table 1 shows that in 2000 more than 17.4%
of the U.S. population (or more than 48 million
people) lived in nonmetro areas. Of these, 32
million people lived in counties adjacent to a
metro area, which suggests (although by no
means guarantees2) relatively greater access
2
Counties are neither of uniform size nor topography.
For example, counties in the West tend to be much
larger than those in the East. A resident in a western
county may be 100 miles or more from any city.
Page 4
to services, employment, and infrastructure
available in cities (Luloff & Swanson, 1990,
p. 2). Of the 16.8 million people who lived
in nonmetro counties that are not adjacent
to metropolitan areas, 2.8 million lived in
areas designated as completely rural: This
constitutes the rural population that is likely
to have the greatest challenges in terms of
access.
The map in Figure 1 shows how these
population categories are distributed. As can
be seen, the more remote populations are to
be found on the Great Plains, the Ozarks and
Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and Alaska.
Based on his critique of the prevailing
classification schemes, Isserman (2005)
proposed his own typology that addresses
the fact that most counties have both urban
and rural populations. Table 2 shows the
distribution of rural populations by seven types
of counties.
According to Isserman, there are
approximately 59 million people living in rural
areas (21% of the U.S. total) of which over
9 million (15%) live in urban or mixed urban
areas, and 28 million (49%) live in mixed
rural areas. Isserman’s estimate of the rural
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities
Figure 2: The Rural-Urban Density Typology (p. 478). Adapted from “In the National Interest: Defining
Rural and Urban Correctly in Research and Public Policy,” by A. M. Isserman, 2005. International Regional
Science Review, 28(4), p. 465-499.
population living in remote locations of more
than 16 million is consistent with the RuralUrban Continuum. The map in Figure 2
shows U.S. rural-urban density typology.
Today, the U.S. Bureau of the Census
estimates that 20% to 27% of Americans
(53 million to 68 million people) live in a
rural environment. Although this segment
of Americans is approximately equal in size
to the country’s central city population, its
visibility to policy makers is obscured by
its dispersion across more than 75% of the
landscape.
When the rural or non-metropolitan sectors
are disaggregated from the rest of the country,
the most striking characteristic is the diversity
that prevails in rural America. For example, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture classifies six
types of non-metropolitan counties in relation
to their primary economic base: agriculture;
mining, oil, and energy; specialized
government functions; persistent poverty;
federal lands; and destination retirement.
Page 5
Selected Demographic Trends
According to the latest Census, more than
51 million people lived in nonmetropolitan
counties in 2010. This represented an
additional 2.2 million people and a 4.5%
increase since 2000, less than half the growth
rate of 10.8% for metropolitan counties.
Although the nonmetropolitan growth rate
was due in part to the outmigration of
metropolitan counties, the latter grew faster
because they received a disproportionate
share of immigrants and had higher rates of
natural increase. The overall share of the U.S.
population living in nonmetropolitan areas fell
from 18% to 16.5% over the decade (USDA,
2011).
The map in Figure 3 shows the marked
redistribution of the nonmetropolitan
population since 2000, with gains in high
amenity areas in the Mountain West and in
counties adjacent to metropolitan areas across
the country. The greatest concentration of
population decline is in the center of the
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities
Figure 3: Rural Population Change From 2000 to 2009. Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
United States from the northern Great Plains
of Montana and the Dakotas through the Corn
Belt in Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas and south
into western Texas. Other concentrations
can be seen along the Mississippi Valley from
Illinois to Louisiana, as well as in Appalachia,
and the rural regions of the Northeast.
More than a third of nonmetropolitan counties
(750) experienced a natural decrease of
population (i.e., more people died than
were born). Thirty percent of counties
close to metropolitan regions saw a natural
decrease whereas the proportion of remoter
rural counties was 45%. A geographical
concentration in the Great Plains and the
Corn Belt reflects the linkage between
dependence on agriculture and persistent
out-migration over several decades. The
continuing exodus of young adults of childPage 6
bearing age led to a situation in 2000 where
counties with extensive natural decrease
averaged 27% fewer residents in their 20s
than the United States as a whole. In turn this
means that natural decrease counties have
a disproportionate share of older adults (59%
more people ages 70 and older in 2000) than
the United States as a whole. The implications
are serious for these counties: School
enrollment drops with fewer students, the tax
base declines with fewer people and jobs, and
the availability of public services declines as
demands for such services increases from a
growing elderly population (Johnson, 2011).
A major trend is the growing diversity of rural
America as demographic patterns change
quite dramatically. From 2000 to 2010, the
white population in nonmetro areas increased
by only 1.6%, while the Hispanic population
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities
Figure 4: Persistent Child Poverty in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan America. Carsey Institute,
University of Hew Hampshire. Source: Census data supplied by USDA-ERS and SAIPE, 2007.
rose by 45.2%, Asians by 33.4%, and AfricanAmericans by 3.4% (Johnson, 2011).
From 2000 to 2008, the changes among
young people under the age of 20 were even
more marked. The Hispanic population of
young people grew by 26%, while that of
whites and blacks fell by 10.3% and 8.3%,
respectively (Johnson, 2011).
One characteristic of the spatial distribution
of racial minorities in rural America is its close
association with poverty. With exception of
central Appalachia, persistent poverty tends
to be found among African-Americans in the
Delta and Deep South, among Hispanics in
the Southwest, and among Native Americans
on the Northern Plains and in Alaska. The map
in Figure 4 shows the distribution of persistent
child poverty (Johnson, 2011).
Page 7
Is Rural Still Relevant?
A main challenge facing rural America is
that some discount its relevance. Recent
statements from the New York Times,3 the
Brookings Institution,4 and others argue that
the future of America lies with the 100 largest
metropolitan regions, saying that these are
the places that generate most of the GDP,
the innovations, and the talent, and therefore
should receive priority for public and private
investment.
Stauber (2001) posed a critical public policy
question: “Why invest in rural America –
and How?” He believed rural policy in the
e.g., M. Cooper & G. Palmer “Cities Lose Out on Road
Funds From Federal Stimulus.” New York Times, July
8, 2009.
4
e.g., Jennifer Bradley, “MetroPolicy for a MetroNation.”
Brookings Institution, June 2008.
3
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities
United States to be unfocused, outdated
and ineffective, and that “one size fits all”
sector-specific, urban-based, top-down, and
uninformed approaches to the challenges
that face rural America do more harm than
good. His historical perspective showed that
in the two hundred years up until the 1970s,
there had been a common understanding,
a social contract, between urban and rural
America that clearly identified and supported
their respective economic and social roles.
Since then, Stauber argued, there has been
no such social contract and no compelling
arguments articulated and accepted for
metropolitan America to continue to invest
in rural America. Almost a decade later, this
view has been reinforced by a sharp focus of
the work of the Brookings Institution on the
ascendency of large metropolitan regions in
the United States, and supported by an urbaninclined White House. Brookings’ Bruce Katz
encapsulates this view thus:
If we unleash the energies in our metros,
we can compete with anyone. Our 100
largest metropolitan areas constitute a
new economic geography, seamlessly
integrating cities and suburbs, exurbs and
rural towns. Together they house two-thirds
of our population, generate 74% of our
gross domestic product . . . We mythologize
the benefits of small-town America, but it’s
the major metros that make the country
thrive. Why? When cities collect networks
of entrepreneurial firms, smart people,
universities and other supporting institutions
in close proximity, incredible things happen.
(Katz, 2010)
By implication, America beyond the
metropolitan regions is about the past and no
longer relevant to the nation’s future. We are
all familiar with the simplistic way in which
rural America is portrayed in the media and
often in policy discussions. The argument
that rural is not relevant is based on the
assumption that Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) and production of consumer goods and
services is the single most important social
outcome to be valued, and that concentrating
Page 8
investment and wealth is the most effective
strategy for maximizing GDP. This argument
emphasizes maximizing material possessions
and focuses on the operational principle of
efficiency in achieving that end. It ignores
core human values of freedom, justice, equity,
and dignity. It suggests that the exploitation of
natural resources (found mostly in rural areas)
to support excessive urban demands should
be an unconstrained driver of rural economies.
Further, it ignores the potential downside to
concentration of investment and wealth. After
all, it was the brilliance of financial leaders
that created credit default swaps that led
to economic collapse. Large cities pose a
myriad of social and environmental problems
and costs associated with concentrated
populations. Indeed, the act of ignoring
core human values may be a symptom of
excessive urbanization. Finally, it is interesting
to note that when urban dwellers have enough
resources, they often choose to escape the
city for a more human scale life in small towns
or rural areas.
The nation’s 94 largest cities have 57 million
inhabitants (24% of the population). Perhaps
surprising to some, 52 million people (22%
of the population) live in one of 32,070 towns
in the United States with 10,000 or fewer
residents. Because this population lives close
to our natural resources, incredible things
happen. Enough food is produced to feed
the nation at a reasonable cost. Enough
energy is created to power the cities. Our
natural resources are protected, our national
values are affirmed and sustained, and our
environmentally despoiled lands are restored
for wildlife habitat and human enjoyment.
There is absolutely no question that decades
of under investment in rural places and
people has contributed to areas of persistent
poverty; under- and unemployment; population
loss; aging demographics; poor and
worsening access to essential services; and
continuing impacts of discrimination based
on race, class, and power (Dabson, 2011).
This is also true for some cities and many
sectors of most cities. When examined as a
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities
whole, rural America has more in common
demographically with our central cities than
rural American or central cities have with the
suburban rings. Rural America is an extremely
diverse patchwork of resources and people
woven together in unique communities
responsive to the regional ecology. In an age
of information technology, creative talent can
locate anywhere, and innovative productive
structures can be organized in ways that
maximize productivity, sustainability, and fair
distribution of the benefits of both without
being tied to a city. It is to these higher ends
that the remainder of this paper is addressed.
Toward a New Rural Paradigm
A shift is underway that is beginning to
redefine the roles that rural people and places
play in national prosperity and well-being.
This shift is gradual, is apparent both at the
grassroots and in government policy, and is
taking place along a number of dimensions.
We have attempted to capture changes in the
relationship between rural and urban places,
the nature and scope of rural policy, the
focus of economic and regional development,
and the management and control of ruralbased wealth and resources, by contrasting
old and new paradigms. Table 3 presents
the components of these paradigms both
as means of helping to understand these
changes but also to provide a context for
discussing emerging ideas in policy and
practice in a rural setting.
Rural-Urban Relationships. The old
paradigm is concerned with distinguishing
between rural and urban in ways that leave
rural people and places largely at a structural
disadvantage. The way definitions are applied
has significant policy implications for the
allocation of public resources, and increasingly
leads to confrontation between urban and rural
jurisdictions.
The new paradigm moves away from hardand-fast distinctions and measures degrees
of rurality or urbanity in ways that allows
appropriate policies to be designed. The
emphasis is on encouraging the exploration
Page 9
of urban and rural linkage, the search for
common ground within regional frameworks,
and the movement toward high levels of
interdependence. One important aspect is
the increasing recognition of the importance
of micropolitan areas and small towns in
determining investment priorities.
Rural Policy. The old paradigm treats rural
America as a largely undifferentiated place
except in respect to policies and investments
in specific sectors or commodities. There
is some understanding that rural people,
especially in certain regions, are suffering
from multiple disadvantages to which policy is
intended to level the playing field by funding
projects to address community deficits.
However, increasing fiscal constraints and the
use of urban per capita metrics encourage the
consolidation of public services, particularly
in the health, human services, and education
sectors, so that important anchor institutions
such as hospitals, schools, and post offices
disappear from rural small towns, thus
contributing to their continuing decline. Fiscal
constraint also shifts allocation for resources
from entitlements to competitive bidding,
ostensibly to reward innovation and creativity,
but having the effect of penalizing rural
communities with limited institutional capacity.
The new paradigm recognizes that
rural America comprises a diverse and
complex landscape in terms of geography,
demographics, economies, culture, and
history. Some areas are thriving, others are
struggling; some are mired in the structural
disadvantages created in the past, others are
responding to new opportunities. In the new
paradigm, public policy acknowledges these
profound regional differences and supports
priorities that build upon regional assets
and strengths. For example, investments in
information and communications technologies,
as well as in human talents and skills, offer
opportunities for distance learning, tele-health,
and networked community facilities within
rural communities. Emphasis is given to the
importance of place and on linked investments
across sectors and activities to overcome
program silos and inefficiencies.
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities
Table 3: Comparison of Old and New Rural Paradigms
Old Paradigm
New Paradigm
Rural-Urban Relationships
Policy based on confrontational competition for
resources between urban and rural regions.
Policy aimed at identifying and developing rural-urban
linkages to underscore interdependence and mutual benefit.
Urban and metropolitan areas are defined carefully in
terms of population density and commuting patterns,
while rural is defined as the residual.
Areas are defined in terms of their position on a continuum
from dense urban to remote rural. Greater recognition given
to the role of micropolitan areas and small towns as rural
and regional anchors.
Rural Policy
The needs of rural America can be addressed by a “one
size fits all” policy.
Priority for public resources is given to correcting
disadvantage and evening the playing field.
Public policy reflects and embraces the diversity and
complexity of rural America.
Priority for public resources is given to building upon
regional and community assets.
Efficiency in the provision of public and essential
services, especially in health and human services and
education, is achieved through consolidation.
Effectiveness is favored over efficiency in the provision of
public services and is achieved through regional delivery
systems and use of information and communication
technologies.
Resources are allocated competitively so that the
“best” projects and initiatives can benefit, usually the
award goes to communities and regions with strong
institutional capacity.
Investments are made in retaining and expanding rural
institutional capacity so that rural regions are better able to
compete for resources.
Policies are top-down initiated by the Federal
Government according to its priorities and standards.
Policies support innovation and creativity from communities
and regions to address local priorities, within over arching
federal and state frameworks.
Public policy is sector-based.
Public policy is place-based and cross-sectoral.
Economic and Regional Development
Investing in agriculture is sufficient rural policy.
Public support is in the form of subsidies, primarily
price and market supports for agriculture.
Economic development is based on competition
between local and state jurisdictions for external
investment.
National prosperity derives from public investment
concentrating on networked economic activities based
on innovation, entrepreneurship, talented people,
and supporting institutions located in the 100 largest
metropolitan regions.
Rural policy directs investment to range of sectors that
support regional competitiveness.
Public support is in the form of investments, leveraging
investments from the private and philanthropic sectors.
Economic development is based on regional collaboration
and cooperation to convert regional assets into global
competitiveness.
Rural regions and economies are vital to overall national
prosperity and wellbeing, based on their stewardship of land
for food, energy, natural resources, and ecosystem services.
Public investment in such rural regions and economies is
essential to improve hard and soft infrastructure for effective
stewardship.
Control of Wealth and Resources
Policies are focused on extracting natural resources and
other forms of wealth from rural regions for processing
and use elsewhere.
Exploiting natural resources should be an unconstrained
driver of rural economies.
Rural resources are increasingly controlled and managed
by corporations located elsewhere.
Page 10
Policies are focused on retaining and creating wealth in rural
regions.
Natural resources are managed for the long-term to achieve
balance between economic development, social equity, and
ecological sustainability.
Rural resources are increasingly controlled and managed by
or in partnership with local interests.
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities
Economic and Regional Development.
The old paradigm sees agricultural policy
as rural policy in spite of the fact that only
1% claim farming as an occupation and 2%
live on farms. Such policy is geared toward
safeguarding farm incomes through price
and market subsidies, but the impacts are
largely felt in the major farm states and
benefits accrue to large producers not to
local economies. Economic development
aimed at propping up tax bases and halting
out-migration is primarily based on attracting
companies from elsewhere, often using
significant tax and other incentives. This
leads to intense competition between cities,
counties, and states, and wasted resources.
A more recent feature of economic
development has been a focus on economic
clusters, especially in metropolitan centers,
and on the benefits of agglomeration of
innovation, technologies, and talents. The
associated policy framing tends to exclude
any role for rural America.
The new paradigm recognizes that regional
competitiveness requires the engagement
of all sectors in both rural and urban
economies. The emphasis of public policy
is on investments, not subsidies, and on
leveraging resources from the private and
philanthropic sectors to encourage crossjurisdictional and cross-sectoral collaboration
to create vibrant regional economies. Rather
than look to the relocation of firms to rural
regions, the priority is on encouraging
entrepreneurship and the development of
homegrown businesses and economies
based on local and regional assets. Rural
regions will have an increasingly key role in
global competitiveness as custodians and
stewards of vital assets for food, energy,
natural resources, and ecosystem services.
Additionally, regional development must focus
on improving the rural infrastructure, both hard
(e.g. transportation, broadband, and health)
and soft (e.g. entrepreneurship, governance,
and youth engagement).
Control of Wealth and Resources. The
old paradigm sees rural America as being
Page 11
the source of wealth in the form of critical
natural resources that can be extracted
for the benefit of national well-being and
personal fortune. Boom-and-bust cycles are
accepted as an inevitable consequence of
such extraction. Large-scale operations and
major external investments drive mining,
forestry, and industrial farming operations, with
few opportunities for local control or wealth
creation. In fact depletion of wealth and longterm economic and social disadvantage are to
be expected.
The new paradigm sees wealth, broadly
defined to include individual, social,
intellectual, natural, built, and political wealth,
as well as financial, as being the route to
bringing long-term prosperity and well-being
to rural communities and regions. Natural
resources are managed for the long-term,
which can yield not only returns in terms of
income and jobs, but also achieve important
social and environmental goals. Such an
approach requires increasing local control
and ownership of natural resources to ensure
wealth remains largely local.
Rural Opportunities
Public policy and investment needs to be
focused on future prospects and opportunities
to help ameliorate these challenges. The
old, confused paradigm of rural America
(i.e., rustic, agricultural, bucolic, empty,
independent, self-sufficient, etc.) no longer
serves the interests of rural residents,
rural communities, or the nation. The new
paradigm of rural America is a story of great
diversity. Millions of people live in small towns,
more live in scattered patterns near natural
resources either to protect or exploit them, as
well as those who live on farms and ranches
to grow the food that feeds the nation. While
cities grow increasingly indistinguishable from
one another, small towns and rural areas offer
a diversity that still represents the laboratory
of community. Rural policy needs to be based
on a realistic examination of the current
circumstances and provide a framework
that shows a path toward a brighter future.
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities
Several elements for such a framework are
beginning to take shape, including: (1) focus
on small towns as the basic unit of community,
(2) organize community assets into regional
strategies, (3) build and sustain high-quality
modern infrastructure, (4) invest in rural
institutional capacity to achieve long-term
prosperity.
Focus on Small Towns as the Unit of
Analysis. There has been considerable
interest in place-based strategies as
an alternative to the decades of siloed,
categorical investments in urban and rural
communities. We can no longer treat our
policy and program efforts in agriculture,
economic development, environmental
stewardship, health, and poverty as if they do
not interact with one another. We need to view
communities as dynamic ecological systems
that can vary along several dimensions
of quality. These notions are reflected in
such initiatives as the Livable Communities
movement—a movement to integrate the
design and organizations of communities
as an integrated whole (Kochtitzky et al.,
2006). Organize Community Assets into Regional
Strategies. An ingredient of addressing
the rural issue will involve organizing rural
communities into regional structures. This
involves the search for ways of exploring
urban-rural interdependence. Separate
urban and rural policies and strategies are
ineffective; they need to be integrated as
equal components of regional policies and
strategies.
Regional strategies emphasize identifying and
building upon our regional and community
assets for economic opportunity. This is the
flip side of the entitlement. The strong and
positive shift in community and economic
development, away from focusing on
weaknesses and liabilities to focusing on
strengths and assets, has translated into some
very promising areas of innovation that are
permeating the mainstream of public policy:
1) Intentional efforts to foster entrepreneurial
Page 12
communities that encourage and support
the growth of entrepreneurs who can convert
community assets into economic opportunity.
2) Exploration of wealth creation and
retention strategies based on a broad
range of economic, social, environmental
and other assets to be found in every
community to varying degrees. (See also the
Ford Foundation’s Wealth Creation in Rural
Communities, which describes both the wealth
creation framework and gives examples.)
3) Introduction of matched savings accounts
to help low-income people accumulate wealth
through home-ownership, self-employment,
and education. (See also A Guide for IDA
Consumers with Disabilities.)
4) Creation of community development
financial institutions to provide essential local
investments in small businesses and home
purchase. (See also Opportunity Finance
Network.)
5) Capture of a share of intergenerational
wealth transfers to support community
foundations and rural community
development.5
Build and Sustain High-quality Modern
Infrastructure. A couple of years ago,
responses to the Stimulus program
highlighted the huge backlog in basic water
and sewer infrastructure and a substantial
pent-up demand to bring rural communities
up to acceptable modern standards. Similarly,
there is no shortage of demand for repair
and maintenance of the rural road system.
Obviously, these are all critical, but our
definition of essential infrastructure needs
to extend to include broadband, affordable
5
See the Center for Rural Entrepreneurship for a
description of Transfer of Wealth studies, including
a new book from Don Macke, Deborah Markley,
and Ahmet Binerer, “Transfer of Wealth in Rural
America” on how capturing a small proportion of the
wealth that drains out of rural places every year can be
channeled for development purposes via community
foundations.
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities
housing, health care, and education. With
the right telecommunications infrastructure
we can keep our rural clinics, hospitals, and
schools open as part of linked networks for
telemedicine and distance learning, and thus
enable our communities to remain viable. If
we can think about our challenges holistically,
new solutions might offer themselves, rather
than accepting the grinding logic of economies
of scale and consolidation.
Invest in rural institutional capacity. Rural
America must invest to assure that adequate
human resources, technological support,
and institutional systems in the public or
nonprofit sectors are in place. Without such
resources, rural communities will not be able
to take advantage of this new frame and
the associated opportunities. The following
are examples of how rural communities are
investing in rural capacity.
1) Anchor institutions, such as community
colleges and hospitals, are taking the lead to
mobilize their regions and communities for
community and economic prosperity.
2) Regional collaboration is gaining
increasing acceptance across multiple
jurisdictions either through formal regional
development organizations or through ad hoc
efforts to develop strategies and investment
plans.
3) Community foundations are experiencing
growth as the focus for local development,
philanthropic, and voluntary effort.
4) Rural innovation is seeing intentional
efforts being made to find new and more
effective ways of transforming the lives and
livelihoods of rural people through changing
the ways we think about, organize for,
finance, and deliver education and workforce
preparation, individual and community health,
social services, infrastructure, and public
administration.
The new frame for rural America is about
focusing on opportunities that contribute
to national prosperity; build on community
and regional assets; are supported by highquality modern infrastructure; are enabled
Page 13
by flexible, integrated policies and programs;
are brought about by regional partnerships
and collaborations; and are made possible
by enhanced institutional capacity. The new
frame takes us away from “one size fits all¨
policies, rural whine, dominance of commodity
agriculture, and exploitation of our natural
resources without regard for the social and
environmental consequences.
Implications for Disability and
Rehabilitation
This broad analysis points toward a bright
vision for the role of disability and rehabilitation
in rural America. Rather than being seen as a
disadvantaged population requiring subsidies,
people with disabilities and the programs
organized to serve them are viewed as assets.
First, people with disabilities are part of the
population of every community. They can
be seen as part of a community’s assets.
They offer skills and abilities in community
leadership, entrepreneurial energy, and more.
Second, rehabilitation services are often
organized and provided in a manner
consistent with a regional approach. These
systems might be better organized using
a cross-sectoral approach. Moreover,
these organized systems might serve as a
foundation for greater regional development
and collaboration across all sectors. Third,
together, people with disabilities and the
systems organized to provide support
represent significant wealth and resources
within a region and for many of a region’s
communities. These assets might be better
organized and might leverage broader
community development. Fourth, people
with disabilities represent a market demand
for high quality infrastructure. A few selected
examples of research, demonstration, and
knowledge translation opportunities stemming
from this emerging rural paradigm include
community and regional leadership, business
development and job creation, regional
service models, evidence-based information
technology delivery models, and enhancing
community infrastructure.
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities
References
Bostrom, M. (2005). Framing Rural America—
Interconnectedness. The State of 21st Century
Rural America: Implications for Policy and
Practice (p. 4). W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
Coombes, M., & Raybould, S. (2001). Public
Policy and Population Distribution: Developing
appropriate indicators of settlement patterns.
Environment and Planning: Government and
Policy, 19(2), 223-248.
Cromartie, J. (2007). Measuring Rurality:
What’s Rural. Retrieved November 2010, from
USDA Economic Research Service.
Dabson, B. (2011, September 29). Keynote
address to Northern California Association
of Nonprofits 2011 Regional Nonprofits
Conference, Fortuna, CA.
Hamilton, L. C., Hamilton, L. R., Duncan, C.
M., & Colocousis, C. R. (2008). Place Matters:
Challenges and Opportunities in Four Rural
Americas. Carsey Institute, University of New
Hampshire.
Hugo, G., Champion, A., & Lattes, A. (2003,
June). Toward a New Conceptualization of
Settlements for Demography. Population and
Development Review, 29(2), 277-297.
Isserman, A. M. (2005). In the National
Interest: Defining Rural and Urban Correctly
in Research and Public Policy. International
Regional Science Review, 28(4), 465-499.
Johnson, K. M. (2011). Natural Decrease in
America; More Coffins than Cradles. Carsey
Institute Issue Brief No. 30.
Katz, B. (2010, November 1). City Centered:
Investing in Metropolitan Areas to Build the
Next Economy. Retrieved November 8, 2010,
from Brookings Institution.
Kochtitzky, C. S., Frumkin, H., Rodriguez,
R., Dannenberg, A. L., Rayman, J. Rose, K.,
Gillig, R., & Kanter, T. (2006). Urban Planning
and Public Health at CDC. Morbitity and
Page 14
Mortality Weekly Review, 55(SUP02); 34-38.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/
su5502a12.htm
Luloff, A. E. & Swanson, L. E. (1990).
American Rural Communities. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Miller, K. K. (2006). Urban/Rural Areas and
CBSAs. Columbia, MO: Rural Policy Research
Institute.
Smailes, P. (1996). Demographic response
to rural restructuring and counterurbanization
in South Australia 1981-1991. International
Journal of Population Geography, 2, 261-287.
Stauber, K. (2001). Why Invest in Rural
America—and How? A Critical Policy Question
for the 21st Century. Exploring Policy Options
for a New Rural America. Kansas City, MO:
Center for the Study of Rural America, Federal
Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
USDA Economic Research Service. (Ed.).
(2011). Rural America At A Glance. (Economic
Information Bulletin Number 85).
For additional information please contact:
Research and Training Center on Disability in
Rural Communities; The University of Montana
Rural Institute; 52 Corbin Hall, Missoula, MT
59812-7056; 888-268-2743 or 406-243-4562;
406-243-4200 (TTY); 406-243-2349 (Fax);
[email protected]; http://rtc.
ruralinstitute.umt.edu
©2011 RTC:Rural. Our research is supported by grant
#H133B080023 from the National Institute on Disability
and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Dept. of Education.
The opinions expressed those of the author and are not
necessarily those of the funding agency.
Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities